Breaking news from the US  h/t Watts Up With That?  where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede. [...]
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists cant continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum.

The isolation by climate sceptics of one sentence in the 14-chapter draft report was described as "completely ridiculous" by one of the report's lead authors. Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: "You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible &#8230; It's a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn't say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite."

It says: "There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance."

By "virtually certain", the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man's emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC's last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a "very high confidence" &#8211; 90% sure &#8211; humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm.

Breaking news from the US &#8211; h/t Watts Up With That? &#8211; where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede. [...]
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can&#8217;t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum.

Here is what the dipshit in the OP link believes is the "killer admission":

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

Click to expand...

I recommend reading all of section 7.4.5 to get the full gist of what is being studied, and why, and to what effect.

Granny says, "Dat's right - It's a fact, Jack...Global Warming Trend 'Unmistakable' UN Says January 15, 2013  The United Nations' chief science body is meeting in Tasmania as climate scientists urge Australia to prepare for rising sea levels that could put about $300 billion worth of commercial property, infrastructure and homes at risk. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summit in Hobart is the latest round of talks before the release of its fifth major paper in September.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change insists its methods are both vigorous and reliable. The United Nations' main climate agency says the global warming trend is "unmistakable" and it is defending the science behind its assertion. More than 250 scientists who will contribute to the September report, have promised to deliver "scientifically defensible" conclusions when the study is released.

Global warming trend

The IPCC meets as Australia confronts a record-breaking heat wave that has sparked widespread wild fires across the countrys southeast. IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has no doubt that the extreme heat is part of a global warming trend. Pachauri hopes that the international community will rally behind the issue of climate change as it did with previous global efforts designed to stop the depletion of the ozone layer. Yes, I am concerned no doubt, but I also have a high opinion of human wisdom that I think, at some stage, we will bring about change," Pachauri said. "I mean, the world did act on the Montreal Protocol, the whole problem of depletion of the ozone layer and it happened very fast. Now, I expect that perhaps this, as is the case, is going to take a little longer, but hopefully we will get action across the board.

Smoke from a bushfire billows over beach goers at Carlton, about 20 kilometers (12 miles) east of Hobart, Australia, January 4, 2013.

Rising sea levels

Australias government-appointed climate commission is also warning that global warming is increasing the risk of scorching heat waves becoming more frequent. There are concerns too that rising sea levels could threaten the countrys famous beachfront lifestyle. More than 75 percent of Australians live near the ocean. But Alan Stokes, the head of the National Sea Change Task force, which represents many coastal councils and communities, says severe flooding in the state of Queensland two years ago has shown how vulnerable low-lying areas can be. People all around Australia want to live near the coast," explained Stokes. "Theyd like to live as close to it as they can but there is a risk involved, and we dont want to find ourselves in the position in the next 20, 30 or 90 years of facing frequent extreme flooding events such as those we that saw in Queensland, which could destroy those properties and place people in harms way.

Climate scientists are concerned that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet could pose serious problems to vulnerable areas elsewhere, including low-lying island nations in the South Pacific that rise barely a few meters above sea level. The leaders of Kiribati have warned that its entire population of 100,000 people could be forced to migrate if their homes are swamped by the ocean. Climate change is an issue that divides Australia, a nation that relies on cheap supplies of coal. Although many people think that societys reliance on fossil fuels is causing temperatures to rise, others believe that a shifting climate is simply part of a natural cycle and is not caused by mans excesses.

Breaking news from the US  h/t Watts Up With That?  where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede. [...]
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists cant continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum.

Breaking news from the US  h/t Watts Up With That?  where a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede. [...]
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists cant continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum.

Here is what the dipshit in the OP link believes is the "killer admission":

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

Click to expand...

I recommend reading all of section 7.4.5 to get the full gist of what is being studied, and why, and to what effect.

.

Click to expand...

LOL: "there is medium evidence and high agreement...another strong argument against the hypothesis of [non-man made] climate change."

Do you realize the glaring logical inconsistencies here? Medium evidence results in High agreement? The negative hypothesis? Undefined "climate change?" We are up to our eyeballs in politically correct thinking, not to mention that virtually all of these Climate Change lackeys depend on funding from left-wing institutions.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!